Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/01/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
"delete|нарушение авторских прав" mamadjanov's (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as game-screenshot Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Author unknown" is simply untrue, there is the photographers signature on the photo. Stop uploading files without having the smalest idea if the author is known or unknown, i.e. stop inventing facts. Thats terrible and a shame for this project. --Martin H. (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also ich erfinde schon mal keine Fakten. Ich kann sagen, das ich nichts über den Fotografen weiß - also für mich ist er unbekannt. Den da steht ja "unbekannt" und nicht "anonym".
Hier ist eine hochauflösende Kopie : http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/ggb2006012480/ Dort steht aber auch nur ein Herausgeber, nicht der Name des Fotographen. Die BMP Datei mit 18mb hilft auch nicht viel weiter, ausser das ein pariser Fotostudio genannt ist. Aber das ist für mich unleserlich "Xxalery - Paris"--Gonzosft (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, nachdem du zuerst einfach von einer willkürlichen Seite einen Bildausschnitt kopiert hast, hast du nun angefangen nach dem Bild zu suchen.... Wenn du einen Namen in das Feld reinschreiben würdest, dann würdest du das tun weil objektiv nachweisbar ist, dass der genannte Autor der Autor ist. Wenn du Unknown reinschreibst soll es plötzlich nur deine persönlich Meinung sein? Das ist Schwachsinn, auch eine Aussage, der Urheber sei unbekannt, muss einer objektiven Überprüfung standhalten. Z.B. durch Nachweis einer Anonymen Veröffentlichung zum fraglichen Zeitpunkt (vor mehr als 70 Jahren). Nicht mit einem völlig sinnfreien Deeplink auf irgendeine Datei auf irgendeinem Server. Dieser Nachweis fehlt für ziemlich viele deiner Uploads, bei denen du munter Behauptungen aufstellst.
- In diesem Fall fällt sofort auf, dass mit dem von dir geschaffenen Fakt etwas nicht stimmen kann. Diesem Hinweis gilt es nachzugehen, nicht ihn zu ignorieren und einfach komplett das Gegenteil zu behaupten. Mit dem vollständigen Schriftzug ist der Urheber überigens leicht zu recherchieren, tu es. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Schön gedacht, nur lesen ist da nicht - nur Raten. Handschrift von 1900. Probiers halt mal selbst und mach nicht auf Lehrer. Lade die 18mb runter und vergrößer es. Ich Rate : "Walery-Paris" Ich kenne auch keine franz. Fotostudios um es mit anderen Handschriften zu vergleichen.--Gonzosft (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Richtig geraten : Studio "Walery-Paris" gab es, laut Google war es Stanislaw Julian Ignacy Count Ostroróg, 1863 – 1935. Zufrieden ?--Gonzosft (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep No problem. But I prefer to use File:Louis Barthou 01.jpg :) Takabeg (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Now that the author is identified there is no problem. But of course without that there is a problem: This is an educational project, this is not "say whatever you want and make the whole world believe that your information is educational"... buts thats what we do here. Martin H. (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
license CC-BY-NC-2.0 is incompatible with Commoms Adavyd (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied due to its NC-restriction. Túrelio (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
No evidence of public domain media in the linked page. In the bottom stands that they encourage the use of the information there but at the same time there is a copyright note. Poco a poco (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. The original photo (see here) is credited to EPA and is copyrighted. Several uploads of Golovkin's photos (same as this one, as I recall) were speedy deleted and user warned (here). Administrative sanctions against the uploader might be in order. Materialscientist (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The Google's terms are not compatible with {{Cc-by-3.0}}, and its content is neither Boeing's nor Norwegian Air Shuttle's to license as such. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree.
Delete. /Esquilo (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. This image is a work of the state media corporation, which is state-owned and therefore a work of the North Korean government. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.208.213 (talk) (UTC)
- Differently to the U.S., where the law exempts all federal government created works from copyright, the law of DPRK not exempts all government created works but only some very specific from copyright. This is a copyrighted work. --Martin H. (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also think the template is applicable to this picture. Concretely, my opinion is based upon this part of the template: 'current news and bulletins'. This seems to be shown at the eight o' clock news from KCTV, and therefore, is a current event. That's all. --Fer1997 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You misinterprete the words current news by broaden its definition from the copyright ineligible facts to copyrighted works (Art. 9 of the law) shown in conection with the current news, the mere facts. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the template applies, and I'm not sure why you would say otherwise. It is taken from a news broadcast declaring him the new leader—"current news and bulletins" would seem to apply perfectly. 74.73.164.144 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The law says "제12조 법령, 결정, 지시 같은 국가관리문건과 시사보도물, 통보자료 같은 것은 저작권의 대상으로 되지 않는다.", so legislation/laws, decisions and directives such as administrative documents, reports, public registers shall not be the object of copyright. The translation "current news" falls only within reports issued by the government to inform the public about changes of legislation or decisions, it not revers to any other kind of material and it not refers to what you mean with "news broadcasts", thats plain nonsense. Even if it is state TV (... in absence of other TV no wonder). There is an public interest to exempt the text of such reports or the text of the law from copyright because otherwise its difficult to quote from that texts in commercial context. Such copyright exemption exist in almost all countries. There is no exemption for other kind of works protected under Art. 9 of DPRK copyright law. --Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would keep the photo up until we have any indication that it is copyrighted. As it stands, it is a work of the North Korean government. Furthermore, it is a "public register" because it is a record of the transfer of power to Un and public because it is state-owned media. 76.16.208.213 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Works by the NK government are protected by Copyright. And no, its not a public register. We have no indication that it is free in the first place, we only have terrible misunderstanding and wrong conclusions. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would keep the photo up until we have any indication that it is copyrighted. As it stands, it is a work of the North Korean government. Furthermore, it is a "public register" because it is a record of the transfer of power to Un and public because it is state-owned media. 76.16.208.213 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The law says "제12조 법령, 결정, 지시 같은 국가관리문건과 시사보도물, 통보자료 같은 것은 저작권의 대상으로 되지 않는다.", so legislation/laws, decisions and directives such as administrative documents, reports, public registers shall not be the object of copyright. The translation "current news" falls only within reports issued by the government to inform the public about changes of legislation or decisions, it not revers to any other kind of material and it not refers to what you mean with "news broadcasts", thats plain nonsense. Even if it is state TV (... in absence of other TV no wonder). There is an public interest to exempt the text of such reports or the text of the law from copyright because otherwise its difficult to quote from that texts in commercial context. Such copyright exemption exist in almost all countries. There is no exemption for other kind of works protected under Art. 9 of DPRK copyright law. --Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess Martin H. explanation was fair enough and this template cannot be used. However it can be uploaded to en.wikipedia under non-free image given current impossibility of obtaining any free image. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's part of North Korean current news released on KCNA website.--如沐西风 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please explain that? I think it matches the definition of the public domain in North Korea.--如沐西风 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it should be part of the current news in North Korea, so it's in the public domain.--如沐西风 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you misinterpret the words current news. 'Kim Jong-il is dead', thats news and such news is not copyrightable by someone. Random pictures or media coverage of events not falls under this definition. --Martin H. (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is the portrait of Kim Jong-il released by KCNA in the news that Kim Jong-il is dead. I guess it's part of the news since it is included in the news. I'm quite puzzled with these definition.--如沐西风 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The law not covers any kind of "news" or "in the news". It refers to very specific kind of documents: 법령, 결정, 지시. This is exempted from copyright because protection will prevent such documents from beeing used. Any other kind of work is ordinary copyrighted works and the law does not give any reason to assume it is exempted from copyright. Official portraits or portraits distributed in news is not mentioned in the copyright law as beeing not protected. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know Korean language and I just see the English translation of the 12th article in the copyright law of DPRK on Wikisource. Anyway, thank you for your kind explaination.--如沐西风 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- The law not covers any kind of "news" or "in the news". It refers to very specific kind of documents: 법령, 결정, 지시. This is exempted from copyright because protection will prevent such documents from beeing used. Any other kind of work is ordinary copyrighted works and the law does not give any reason to assume it is exempted from copyright. Official portraits or portraits distributed in news is not mentioned in the copyright law as beeing not protected. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- This photo is the portrait of Kim Jong-il released by KCNA in the news that Kim Jong-il is dead. I guess it's part of the news since it is included in the news. I'm quite puzzled with these definition.--如沐西风 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think you misinterpret the words current news. 'Kim Jong-il is dead', thats news and such news is not copyrightable by someone. Random pictures or media coverage of events not falls under this definition. --Martin H. (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Maps are not covered by {{PD-RU-exempt}} - they are not "materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character" and are protected by copyright. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:I-32 1-Mio 1970 CH.jpg for example. --Shureg (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Remarked as obvious copyvio (Civil Code, Article 1259, point 2 and Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006, Article 10 have clearly copyrighted such works). Alex Spade (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Polarlys (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
duplicate of thumb|left|100px|this file
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
According to source, image is from 1932, not 1907, therefore PD-1923 is inapplicable. It is unclear whether any of the no-notice or not-registered tags would apply: it is unclear what the context of the image is from (it looks like part of a larger work, which might have carried the copyright notice) and it is unclear who the named author would be (making it difficult to determine if not-registered would apply).GrapedApe (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Photo of non-notable band, bandspam, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Personal photo of user (or?), not in use anywhere, out of scope. Martin H. (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Official PR photo, previously published elsewhere on the Web (e.g. [1]), no evidence for permission High on a tree (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unusable personal work, out of scope. P199 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal work, out of scope. P199 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
User with a history of copyright violations. Somehow, all his "self-created" photos have different metadata attached to them. I seriously doubt this was self-created. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that the flickr uploader is the copyright holder on the film Dance 'Til Dawn. Thats just someone writing about favorite moments in various films at http://www.ingridrichter.org/. Martin H. (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyvio. Flickr tag is clearly inaccurate. -Pete F (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Image from a commercial photo shoot. Claim of ownership has little if any credibility. Pichpich (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Claim of ownership is not credible. Seems to be copied from http://werun.nyheter24.se/isabelles/2011/06/page/4/ and is therefore not even an image of the right person! Pichpich (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This file is copyrighted Егор Осин (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Promotional, out of scope Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Used as a personal picture on page. Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Violates COM:ADVERT, therefore cannot be kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:DW (package) 77.184.53.176 07:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It's my own picture, how is it derivitive? --Wgungfu (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The box (package) is copyrighted; this image infringes that copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_December_20&curid=34129930&diff=469280659&oldid=469242213#Uploads_by_User:Echen Bulwersator (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned is "own work". It is the only contribution of the user. It resembles strong to image on http://www.liberoricercatore.it/galleriafotografica/anticabottega.htm but see the text above the door Wouter (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - hoax. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
неиспользуемый файл mamadjanov's (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete File not in use is not a reason for deletion. But this is a copyvio most likely or if not it's out of scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per {{PD-textlogo}}. --M5 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Strange private "religion" about something - unusable for the commons Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- additionally: the author has a myspace-page (see http://www.myspace.com/antonio-alaedine ) that supports violence (see the first quotation in it from 2011) --Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The easiest thing to say is that the images are not sourced, hence probable copyvio. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Image contains multiple recent stamps still under copyright. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment can the images on the stamps be blurred somehow? i think that may make it de minimis. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- There's not much point is there? All we would have then would be the outline of an airmail envelope. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Bad quality, unused, and many alternatives given. Yikrazuul (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Corrupted (scrambled-color) image; no obvious way to fix. To be deleted unless someone recognizes a way to correct it. Closeapple (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep despite my own nomination. I found out what's going on! It's CMYK color instead of RGB color! It shows up more or less reasonably in IrfanView. I think it's just a matter of web browsers (Firefox?) not knowing how to handle it. Maybe someone should convert it to RGB and upload a derived version as a different filename, so we have the original and a less startling version. Any admin want to consider this a withdrawn deletion request? --Closeapple (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, if you tell your image viewer to use the ICC profile of your monitor, the picture color is completely reasonable also, instead having exaggerated pink and green. In IrfanView with the standard plug-in pack installed, go to Options > Properties/Settings — "Zoom / Color management" — check "Enable color management, set display/output profile to..." Then reload the image. --Closeapple (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Please clean it up -- I am not sure we actually permit CMYK images Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
NPG Sourced image, so thus not free in the UK (Country of origin). Could be uploaded to local project. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "NPG Sourced" and why do you dispute the PD licence on the original File:Henry Tudor of England.jpg ?
- This is a very old painting - the artist's copyright has long expired. The photographer's copyright seems to be excluded from the original under {{PD-art}}, as a simple mechanical 2D reproduction. The crop is trivial. I can see no indication that the NPG have any copyright-based control over either this digital image, or reproductions of the original overall. If there really is any such issue, it ought to be added to the uncropped source file File:Henry Tudor of England.jpg first of all. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Withdrawn ,Un-cropped Source image isn't NPG sourced, so the original reasoning does not apply. Sorry Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The uploader's claim to own the copyright is implausible. The original uploader (i.e. the uploader to English Wikpedia, not the user who moved it to commons) has a history of making false copyright claims on uploads to English Wikipedia, where files have been deleted, but this one has been moved to commons. I have not located the full size original of this file, but a smaller scale copy of it appears at http://www.athq.com/customer/product.php?productid=16632 and on other pages, and every indication is that it is a photograph belonging to the phone's manufacturer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Leyo 12:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Really own work? {{PD-textlogo}} would not be applicable. Leyo 13:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Leyo 13:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Quality is too low, not usable. Leyo 13:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Page merely duplicates part of content of Category:Michael Collins. Redundant content. Content not in English. O'Dea (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Galleries may be in any language and are a convient way to show off a selcted set of images from a category. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The source is just one of the many sourches that could be used. See yje many hits on Google image search. Copyright question. The only contribution of the user. Wouter (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The map has been uploaded from this website without any permission. Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, at the bottom of the page we can read: Ogni contenuto è riservato all'autore. Vietata la diffusione delle immagini e contenuti se a scopo commerciale. English: All content rights reserved by the author. Any distribution of the images and contents for commercial purpose is forbidden. Quite the opposite of the given license... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Leyo 13:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 08:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not usable without a description. I could not find out, where this rock might be. Leyo 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. According to the Mevlana Museum, this work was drawn in 1960. Takabeg (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Support: At the time I made the photo this information was impossible for me to know. This image was shown in the Mevlana Museum amidst many very old Qurans. Then it was a natural assumption that this image wasn't recent. JoJan (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Map uploaded from this website without any permission. Siorlu's claim that he was the author is, well, more than dubious. Why would he create a map in microscopic size, where you even struggle to read the caption? Please note this deletion request regarding another of his uploads. Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
unfree image taken from the internet Sabunero (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
How can we be sure that this poster (cannot be earlier than 1928 due to the song Oh, Donna Clara) is PD-old when the author remains unknown. There is no proof yet that this has been published anonymously. AFBorchert (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No indication is given why this could be PD-old. AFBorchert (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Although claimed to be "own work" that seems highly unlikely from the context. It looks like a scan or a photo of a page from a book - copyright status unknown. ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Elsevier is a dutch scientific publisher so this is most likely not a German administrative office work. Matt (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- same source, same uploader
- File:MaleGender.jpg
- File:FemaleGender.jpg
- File:Cranio.jpg
- File:CranioIIlat80percent.jpg
- File:Finger phys.jpg
- File:Fingernagel .jpg
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an obvious copyright violation to me. If Garth Vauguhan is the photographer, how is it possible that the uploader is the author? Powers (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio. --Claritas (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not "own work". It's a scan without source. Matt (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The image File:Esox lucius11.jpg is a duplicate of the File:Esox lucius ZOO 1.jpg and does not cerdit myself (User:Jik jik) as the author of the original image. --Jik jik (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Beautiful image -- thank you for uploading it. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The trophy appears to be sufficiently creative to have its own copyright; if this is the case, the photo is an unauthorized derivative work of the nonfree sculpture. RJaguar3 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture, maybe copyvio for the background. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Useless personal picture. Ices2Csharp (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
presumably non-free derivative work without the encyclopedic value Анастасия Львоваru (ru-n, en-2) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete It has a lot of educational value, but unfortunately too likely to be a copyvio. Unless the painting from which it's copied is in PD. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Greece. 84.61.131.15 19:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have hundreds of photos in Category:Airports in Greece. Either delete all buildings and structures in Greece, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The airport was built in 1977, therefore all of its buildings are still in copyright and this infringes on that copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Greece. 84.61.131.15 19:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have hundreds of photos in Category:Airports in Greece. Either delete all buildings and structures in Greece, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Greece. 84.61.131.15 19:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have hundreds of photos in Category:Airports in Greece. Either delete all buildings and structures in Greece, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Image contains copyrighted images - copyright held by Eon Productions Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Greece. 84.61.131.15 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- IP idiocy. We have hundreds of photos in Category:Airports in Greece. Either delete all buildings and structures in Greece, or stop trolling. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No FOP in France, architect of the train station is still alive: Santiago Calatrava Valls. Not public domain before at least 71 years PierreSelim (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Just an advertising photograph of vitamin pills, unclear if uploader owns rights too Funfood ␌ 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Author request Ebe123 (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Transfer error. Author disputed. Ebe123 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a logo, which are not generally under a free license. Which in turn would not be compatible with Commons. Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete According to the source link on the file the image is copyrighted. Armbrust (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Was tagged as copyvio. But it might be out of project scope. RE rillke questions? 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Uploading request, author not matching original uploader and licence may not be valid. Ebe123 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Modern 3D artwork, located in US, no FoP Ronhjones (Talk) 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot from the trailer film. A forged license. Iluvatar (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
darum Tara62 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Unsufficient reason given ("because"). Lymantria (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
weil das bild nicht zu den anderen passt. Tara62 (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Already gone --Denniss (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: What new this image could add to Category:Penis? EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion requests is not a place to nominate to simply ask a question. But i will answer anyhow, having looked at the images in the category i see no non-erect white penises with pubic hair from anything that can be considered to be a comparable angle. I have left a note on the uploader's talk page requesting more information about the depicted person, it would be good to have age and some other facts, which would increase the educational value of this image. So basically we agree that the image can be more educational. But i disagree that the fact that there's room for growth means that we need to delete it. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The question asked is inherent to our Scope - does this image add anything to a category that has many images about the subject? I would say no. Do we have an adequate number of quality images showing the subject so we don't need another? I would say yes. That would mean that to follow policy in my view is to delete this image. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Polarlys with the summary: "no source, no permission." Logan Talk Contributions 17:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- That seems to have been an accident - messaged: User_talk:Polarlys#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Penispubic.jpg --Saibo (Δ) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have never seen this penis before. This was by accident, I am sorry. --Polarlys (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Blurry, low quality, COM:PORN (nothing we donna have already). --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have forgotten to read the discussion. I have already stated that we need "non-erect white penises with pubic hair from anything that can be considered to be a comparable angle" to ever apply COM:PORN. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Funny. Blurry, low quality, COM:PORN (nothing we donna have already). Besides, "comparable angle" is not an argument, but the pathetic try for it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will take this as "I checked, realised that there's nothing comparable, and didn't know how to respond". VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Funny. Blurry, low quality, COM:PORN (nothing we donna have already). Besides, "comparable angle" is not an argument, but the pathetic try for it. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- You have forgotten to read the discussion. I have already stated that we need "non-erect white penises with pubic hair from anything that can be considered to be a comparable angle" to ever apply COM:PORN. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Yikrazuul. --JN466 23:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, unique educational value with this image. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- lol, no weasel words, please. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: low-res + low-quality + better alternatives available Denniss (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
This is no improvement in comparison to File:Zdf.kultur logo.svg. AFBorchert (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Common Good (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No credits at [2], license at [3] appears OK but IIRC this file looks like w:en:File:Raspberry pi alpha.jpg -- Trevj (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Mea culpa -- I didn't notice the license page on that site. Weird. Anyway, it's a photo taken from the official site -- http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/78 --Trycatch (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the official site now intends to use "CC sharealike licenses" (see File:Raspberry Pi Beta Board.jpg). -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily with the summary: "No permission since 2 January 2012." Logan Talk Contributions 17:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No source given at [4] or [5], although license at [6] appears OK - perhaps this is actually a genuine photo taken and released by that site, unlike File:Raspberry Pi.jpg -- Trevj (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Again -- mea culpa, something is wrong with me that I've failed to find the very visible "License" page on that site, but anyway the picture was taken from video from the official site -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Or1-kN2z1iM#at=133 Trycatch (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the official site now intends to use "CC sharealike licenses" (see File:Raspberry Pi Beta Board.jpg). -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fastily with the summary: "No permission since 2 January 2012." Logan Talk Contributions 17:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
46.228.185.150 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is sourced to the UK National Portrait Gallery, who have previously tried to assert claims to have additional rights on digital reproductions of works they hold in the UK. It is felt that because the image may be non-free in the UK, It should be treated as PD only in countries that wouldn't recognise the NPG's UK claims. This is felt to be incompatible with Commons licensing, but would not necessarily be incompatible with those of a local project like English Wikipedia, where images that are PD only in the US (but not in the UK) can be uploaded. The suggestion is that the image be deleted from Commons, but re-uploaded locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The same picture is published in a 1863 book and if not beyond 70 years of the authors should hold under the pre 1923 US. http://www.archive.org/stream/journaldiscover00unkngoog#page/n6/mode/1up and a better quality one here http://www.archive.org/stream/journal00ofdiscovespekrich#page/n5/mode/1up which is an engraving by Samuel Hollyer (died 1919) which I have uploaded as a substitute for this image at File:J_H_Speke.jpg - Shyamal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - just a scan of a photo, even in the UK the NPG's claims on this should be highly questionable. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is sourced to the UK National Portrait Gallery, who have previously tried to assert claims to have additional rights on digital reproductions of works they hold in the UK. It is felt that because the image may be non-free in the UK, It should be treated as PD only in countries that wouldn't recognise the NPG's UK claims. This is felt to be incompatible with Commons licensing, but would not necessarily be incompatible with those of a local project like English Wikipedia, where images that are PD only in the US (but not in the UK) can be uploaded. The suggestion is that the image be deleted from Commons, but re-uploaded locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - just a scan, difficult to understand what Sfan is trying to accomplish. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is sourced to the UK National Portrait Gallery, who have previously tried to assert claims to have additional rights on digital reproductions of works they hold in the UK. It is felt that because the image may be non-free in the UK, It should be treated as PD only in countries that wouldn't recognise the NPG's UK claims. This is felt to be incompatible with Commons licensing, but would not necessarily be incompatible with those of a local project like English Wikipedia, where images that are PD only in the US (but not in the UK) can be uploaded. The suggestion is that the image be deleted from Commons, but re-uploaded locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Make a DR for {{PD-Art}} instead of this disruption. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This image is sourced to the UK National Portrait Gallery, who have previously tried to assert claims to have additional rights on digital reproductions of works they hold in the UK. It is felt that because the image may be non-free in the UK, It should be treated as PD only in countries that wouldn't recognise the NPG's UK claims. This is felt to be incompatible with Commons licensing, but would not necessarily be incompatible with those of a local project like English Wikipedia, where images that are PD only in the US (but not in the UK) can be uploaded. The suggestion is that the image be deleted from Commons, but re-uploaded locally. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - disruption by Sfan. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
wrong name DDexter (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Then use {{Rename}}. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see the file licensed cc-by-3.0 (as suggested) at source. Lymantria (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-English name cannot be the reason for deletion. But image deleted as copyvio. Anatoliy (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation from http://www.mghelmets.com/ Also, unused and out of scope.GrapedApe (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete by, uploader. It is my mistake. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by Lawbuffy (talk · contribs). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Weil diese Datei dem Benutzer "Carl Soehne" gehört! Wiki.carl-soehne.de (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The uploader himself (Carl Soehne = Wiki.carl-soehne.de) requested the deletion, so we should wilfare it. Carl soehne is an unexperienced new user who used the wrong deletion request, better he had asked for an uploaders speedy-del.
BTW: It is a BadSVG with imbedded raster grahic and of low quality and not used by any page. The file has no advantage for Wikimedia, there are many better pics in Anatomy of the human eye. -- sarang
사랑 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree,
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
and other uploads by CMFM2011 (talk · contribs). Different sources, no evidence of permissions. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Weil diese Datei dem Benutzer "Carl Soehne" gehört! Wiki.carl-soehne.de (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - The uploader himself (Carl Soehne = Wiki.carl-soehne.de) requested the deletion, so we should wilfare it. Carl soehne is an unexperienced new user who used the wrong deletion request, better he had asked for an uploaders speedy-del.
BTW: It is a BadSVG with imbedded raster grahic and of low quality and not used by any page. The file has no advantage for Wikimedia, there are many better pics in Anatomy of the human eye. -- sarang사랑 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, Delete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree,
Deleted. MBisanz talk 23:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Replaced by File:JP Logo CMYK-1.jpg. Leyo 12:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. MBisanz talk 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{PD-DPRKGov}} is not applicable to this file. Martin H. (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't know why it is not applicable.--如沐西风 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
upload error Gaujmalnieks (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
made a mistake while uploading using the "Flinfo"-tool; this useless page is that mistake.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 08:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Página en blanco Edubucher (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, againYmblanter (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I was going to use it in a prank against a friend. lol sorry Furiousnaxus (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
DeleteOut of project scope. Leyo 13:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per user request and out of scope Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The grandson of the creator claims copyrights still exist. 80.179.112.106 21:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Kept. - please provide some evidence, this is too vague - Jcb (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Deror avi had a long dispute with this grandson about these photos. Maybe he can explain better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.112.106 (talk • contribs) 27. Dezember 2010, 11:26 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC))
Dear all,
The photo was taken in 1933 by my Grandfather, the late Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz, in what was then the British Mandate for Palestine. It was scanned and uploaded to the internet about a year ago by Israel's National Library, under the permission of the copyright holders.
The photo is protected under US copyright laws (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf, page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date"), and therefore should be deleted from the Commons project. The reasons for that are as follows:
- The photo was not published anywhere until 2010, when it was uploaded to Israel National Library site.
- My grandfather - the creator of the photo - passed away in 1992.
- The copyright on the photo was transferred to the photographer's sons, i.e. it still belongs to the photographer's family.
- The photo was downloaded from Israel National Library site and cropped to hide a copyright statement that was added to the photo as a watermark. This was done against the explicit will of the copyright holders. Since it was downloaded by the Israeli Wikipedia user, the watermark on the original image was changed and moved to the center of the image in order to prevent similar acts.
- The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library. This is also indicated next to every image in the Library's site.
--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, with all due respect, but doesn't what's written in the license template on the image page "A photograph taken on 24 May 2008 or earlier — the old British Mandate act applies, i.e. on 1 January of the 51st year after the creation of the photograph (paragraph 78(i) of the 2007 statute, and paragraph 21 of the old British Mandate act)." apply here? --Túrelio (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All Wikimedia Commons file uploads must at least comply with the US copyright laws. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is wrong - the applicable material law (even in a US court) would be the Israeli Law - which clearly states that the image is free. Furthermore, Or Aleksandrowicz is not the sole hair - and has not proven he is the heir to the copyrights (which dont' exist in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you figure that? If truly not published until 2010, the URAA would not apply (which is the only case I can think of which would take into account Israeli law, other than determining who the first rightsholder would be), but rather it simply gets a 70 pma term in the United States. It never became public domain in the United States, so it would not have needed restoration. It sounds like they are PD in Israel (I'm not sure why a scan would get an additional copyright as claimed; an agreement with the Library would not mean anything unless Israeli law allows copyright on scans of PD material, which would surprise me), but the photo won't be PD in the U.S. until 2063. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- the fact is - an image can be free at one country while according to US Law it would not have been free. For example - the Burn convsion states in article 9 (2): "2.It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author." Once on countey legislates so, it applies to picture taken by its domicile or in its domicile, therefore, for example - if an architect builds a building in Jerusalem - it may be photographed freely there (according to Israeli Law), and all images are free (provied the photographer allowed it). A building by the same architect in venice would not be free (For exmample: images of this bridge in Jerusalem is free, work by the same architect such as the bridge in vanice is not). So the issue in question is the Law at the country of origin (See here for example), and the reason is that the convenient forum to hear the claim will always be the country of origin (based on the expectation of the parties to legal defence). The relevent Wikimedia Commons policy is this one - the work was not published nor registered in the US prior to 1978 and therefore also free in the US. Deror avi (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- How do you figure that? If truly not published until 2010, the URAA would not apply (which is the only case I can think of which would take into account Israeli law, other than determining who the first rightsholder would be), but rather it simply gets a 70 pma term in the United States. It never became public domain in the United States, so it would not have needed restoration. It sounds like they are PD in Israel (I'm not sure why a scan would get an additional copyright as claimed; an agreement with the Library would not mean anything unless Israeli law allows copyright on scans of PD material, which would surprise me), but the photo won't be PD in the U.S. until 2063. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is wrong - the applicable material law (even in a US court) would be the Israeli Law - which clearly states that the image is free. Furthermore, Or Aleksandrowicz is not the sole hair - and has not proven he is the heir to the copyrights (which dont' exist in Israel). Deror avi (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- All Wikimedia Commons file uploads must at least comply with the US copyright laws. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are pretty simple, no need to write so much. The photo was taken in 1933, was not known to anyone (except the creator) until 2003, not published until 2010. The creator died in 1992. As mentioned before, according to this official US Copyright Office document (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf), page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date: These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life plus 70 or 95/120 year terms apply to them as well." Copyright is automatic, not a single word about a need to register the copyright in order to secure it. If US laws are different, please provide some real evidence. A Wikimedia template is far from being a formal legal document (BTW, don't fully understand the meaning of "copyright notice" in the template that was referred to. If it means only a clear indication to the identity of the copyright holder, there was a clear copyright watermark on the original file that was manipulated by the Israeli Wikipedia user, but it was intentionally cropped by him before uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons servers).--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- One comment. In Israel Or has not grounds for his legal arguments. He was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats. Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments. As to his legal arguments - it is wrong. The images were indead "published" in the early 30's. According to Israeli Law (as well as UK law) "publication" happens when one person other than the photographer sees the picture. Deror avi (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Mr. Deror Avi has a long and documented dispute with me about my grandfather's photos (in the Israeli Wikipedia), containing lots of distorted "quotes" of my own claims that are misleading at best, if not plainly untruthful. So let's stick to facts: I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia (I guess this can be verified); I have never threatened anyone (inside or outside Wikipedia); My brother, Gadi Aleksandrowicz, never stated that I have no ground in the above argument; the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed. The Story is simple: my grandfather took about 15000 photos during the 1930's. He printed some hundreds of them (not including this one). Most of them (including the photo under question here) remained unknown to anyone until I found a small bag with all the negatives in my grandmother's apartment in 2003. Again, these were negatives, not prints (the scans in the National Library were done from the negatives, BTW). No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel (again one of Deror Avi's distorted quotes), but, since they are under copyright in the US (as far as I understand), the should not be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons project. That's the whole story. So please delete this photo from the project. Anyone can still enjoy it on Israel National Library internet site. And Deror - you made your point clear. No slandering is needed. Step down and let others - who may know the American Law better than you - judge.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions (see for example here and here - a demand the WF would provide a Legal Opinion). As to hisd arguments - let me present inconsistancies in his versions above he he states that:
- "the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed"
- "The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library"
- "No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel "
- lets examine there claims:
- In Hebrew wikipedia Or stated that:
- 1. The photographs were all published in the 1930th in the US or in Poland.
- 2. The family (and not him) still has copyright
- 3. The Polish law applies
- (see here and here. Or even claims he has a legal opinion saying this see here.
- Lets examine there claims as well:
- 1. If indeed the images were published in the US in the 30th and not registered - they are free now in the US.
- 2. No "agreement" can create copyright according to the Israeli Law where those do not exist according to the Law.
- 3. Or's version are somewhat inconsistant (in other words - he is not truthful).
- To sum up - it is undisputed the images are PD in Israel, and has been so for more than 30 years. It is also free under US Law, and according to the Polish Law (see here. If Or believes otherwise, he should bring evidence to the contrary (for example - produce the legal opinion stating that the Polish Law applies.). Deror avi (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions (see for example here and here - a demand the WF would provide a Legal Opinion). As to hisd arguments - let me present inconsistancies in his versions above he he states that:
- Mr. Deror Avi has a long and documented dispute with me about my grandfather's photos (in the Israeli Wikipedia), containing lots of distorted "quotes" of my own claims that are misleading at best, if not plainly untruthful. So let's stick to facts: I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia (I guess this can be verified); I have never threatened anyone (inside or outside Wikipedia); My brother, Gadi Aleksandrowicz, never stated that I have no ground in the above argument; the photo was NEVER published nor seen, even by the photographer, since it (like 95% of his all collection) was never even printed. The Story is simple: my grandfather took about 15000 photos during the 1930's. He printed some hundreds of them (not including this one). Most of them (including the photo under question here) remained unknown to anyone until I found a small bag with all the negatives in my grandmother's apartment in 2003. Again, these were negatives, not prints (the scans in the National Library were done from the negatives, BTW). No one claims the photos are under copyright in Israel (again one of Deror Avi's distorted quotes), but, since they are under copyright in the US (as far as I understand), the should not be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons project. That's the whole story. So please delete this photo from the project. Anyone can still enjoy it on Israel National Library internet site. And Deror - you made your point clear. No slandering is needed. Step down and let others - who may know the American Law better than you - judge.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- One comment. In Israel Or has not grounds for his legal arguments. He was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats. Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments. As to his legal arguments - it is wrong. The images were indead "published" in the early 30's. According to Israeli Law (as well as UK law) "publication" happens when one person other than the photographer sees the picture. Deror avi (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are pretty simple, no need to write so much. The photo was taken in 1933, was not known to anyone (except the creator) until 2003, not published until 2010. The creator died in 1992. As mentioned before, according to this official US Copyright Office document (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf), page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date: These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life plus 70 or 95/120 year terms apply to them as well." Copyright is automatic, not a single word about a need to register the copyright in order to secure it. If US laws are different, please provide some real evidence. A Wikimedia template is far from being a formal legal document (BTW, don't fully understand the meaning of "copyright notice" in the template that was referred to. If it means only a clear indication to the identity of the copyright holder, there was a clear copyright watermark on the original file that was manipulated by the Israeli Wikipedia user, but it was intentionally cropped by him before uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons servers).--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Deror Avi, if this photo had never before been published, {{PD-1996}} does not apply. Perhaps its text is a bit misleading. That is for photos which had already fallen into the public domain in the U.S., and did not get restored by the URAA. It was impossible for unpublished works to have ever fallen into the U.S. public domain in the first place before 2003 -- everything revolves around the publication date. If it was not published until after 2002, then its U.S. copyright term is a straight 70pma. If photos were actually published in the 1930s (be it the U.S., Israel, or Poland) then the determination would follow completely different lines, but unpublished works are pretty straightforward. It sounds like this photo would not have been restored by the URAA, but since it never fell into the public domain in the U.S. in the first place, there was no need. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, this time the misstatements are a bit too much. Let's go over Deror Avi's claims, as were written just here, in this discussion, and see whether any of them are right:
- "the issue in question is the Law at the country of origin". UNTRUE. The issue here is the law of the country of origin AND the US (as it is stated in the Wikimedia Commons licensing page: " works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work").
- "The relevent Wikimedia Commons policy is this one - the work was not published nor registered in the US prior to 1978 and therefore also free in the US". UNTRUE. The policy that is referred to states that a work that was published after 1978 (as this one) must be published "without copyright notice" in order to gain a PD status. Copyright notice means just a clear indication to copyright holders, not a registration, which, in our case, was clearly done on the original publication site (Israel National Library internet site) upon publication day (September 2010).
- "[Or] was blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia for his behaviour and threats". UNTRUE. I was never blocked from Hebrew Wikipedia, nor threated anyone. The allegation for some kind of a "wrong" behavior from my side is nothing more than a mere slander.
- "Anothe heir who is a wikipedia user - Gadi Aleksandrowicz - stated that Or had no grounds in his arguments". UNTRUE. Gadi Aleksandrowicz – my brother, BTW – never made such a statement.
- "The images were indead "published" in the early 30's". UNTRUE. First of all, we are discussing a single image, not "images". This specific image under question was published first on Israel National Library site during September 2010. I would love to see some kind of a proof for the alleged early publication.
- "All of Or's pictures have been deleted from Hebrew wiki not because they are not free, but as he threatned with legal actions". UNTRUE. I have never threatened anybody in Wikipedia with legal actions. I would also love to see the quote of these "threats".
- "In Hebrew wikipedia Or stated that: 1. The photographs were all published in the 1930th in the US." UNTRUE. I stated that A MINOR part of the photos was published in Poland and the US during the 1930's, and that some of the photographs were also printed in Poland. The photo under discussion here was not among them, like about 95% of the collection. I restate this for the third time. In case Deror still refuses to read my words, I would love him to supply some kind of evidence for an early publication of the photo under question here. Guess what – there is no such thing.
- "it is undisputed the images are PD in Israel, and has been so for more than 30 years. It is also free under US Law, and according to the Polish Law". UNTRUE. It is undisputed that the specific photo under question is in PD in Israel BUT it is disputed whether it is in PD in the US or not (BTW, what the hell has the Polish law to do with this specific photo and this specific discussion? I didn't mention it here, and it does not apply here. So many words, so little to do with this specific discussion). I provided some pretty fair reasons as a support for my claim that the photo is not in PD in the US (see above. Maybe this time Deror will read it carefully or at least will refute the clear words of the US copyright office document I refer to). In contrast, the only support for Deror's claim that the photo is in PD in the US is a reference to a Wikimedia policy which actually refutes his own claim (see clause 2 here).
I think it's about time Deror should let others support his views with some real legal evidence. It's also about time Deror stops making untrue allegations and misstatements. The above list speaks for itself. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep From looking at the old Israeli law, which was in force at the time of this photograph, it says 50 years (or in our case 51) after the photograph is taken, it will be placed into the public domain. The text reads "21. The term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty’s dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts." So, if you take this photograph date and add 51 years, it would be 1984 that the image fell into the public domain in Israel. It doesn't matter, according to this law, if the photograph was released later or scanned later. Under the 1911 law, the time starts when the photograph is made from the negative. Now to jump to the US issue; if you look at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm there is a section about works solely published abroad. From 1923 until 1977, if the work was "Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996" then such work would be in the United States. The work is public domain in Israel since 1984, so it is before that January 1996 cutoff date. There is no proof that the image was published in the United States at all; the person who brought this here said himself that it first seen the light of day in Israel in 2010. So, under the terms of what is at the Cornell page, and using Or's own words, the image is definitely public domain in the United States, thus satisfying the rules that Or keeps mentioning on how works must be PD in the source country and the United States. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was apparently never published until 2010, so it never became PD in the United States, and is still copyrighted there. It did not need to be restored by the URAA. Look in the "Unpublished" section of the chart you link; that is the appropriate term to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I am seeing of the old Israeli code, publication for photographs doesn't matter for their copyright term. Plus, there is "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" (so this would include 2010) and it reads "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)." Also, according to http://www.bh.org.il/database-article.aspx?56163, he was in Israel past 1930 so Israel would be the point of origin for his photos (before then, Poland). But we have to see the original URL for the image so we can see what exactly does the National Picture Archive (or the agency that has this photograph) say. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disputing the Israel part -- agree with you there. It's just the U.S. side of things. The URAA is not relevant since it didn't need to be restored, so the status in Israel on January 1, 1996 is not relevant here. Publishing in 2010 without a copyright notice has no consequence under U.S. law; lack of notice has not had any effect since March 1, 1989. If it was still copyrighted in the U.S. 2009 by virtue of being unpublished, then it's also copyrighted in 2011, regardless of intervening publication or notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find this photo online outside of Wikimedia mirrors; is there a way that either Or or Deror could find this image on the website that it is claimed to be taken from? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I gave a direct link above. It is located on the servers of Israel National Library. As you can see, since the copying of the file to Wikipedia, we have changed the position of the copyright watermark, so in the link you will see it in the center of the frame. When it was first downloaded the watermark (which was also smaller) was aligned to the lower part of the frame, and then intentionally cropped out by the Hebrew Wikipedia user who uploaded it to Wikipedia. This is also why the lower part of the photo is missing from the file that was uploaded. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see now. Generally, if the photo is public domain, cropping out the watermark (or finding a version without one) is preferred. I still need to look over and see if it still really is copyrighted in the US or not since for the Israeli terms, publication just meant taking a photo from the negative. I believe the image would still be on Wikipedia's servers (either en.wp or Hebrew, if it accepts fair use) but from my view and from what I have seen other people do, if we completely went by the US rule fully, many of the images we have now won't stay on Wikipedia. It is one of the most ignored, and also one of the most fought over, rules for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I am only interested in this specific photo on this specific project (Commons). If we agree that this specific photo is under copyright in the US, and since the current Commons stated policy is not to allow uploading of copyrighted material according to US law, I do not see any good reason for not deleting it from Commons servers. It's about time. BTW, in the past I have suggested to upload some of my grandfather's photos to WP under the CC BY 2.5 license (attribution), which - if I understand correctly - is not accepted in the Commons project. For us, the attribution is a fundamental condition for sharing the material. This is also why I insist on deleting this photo from Commons.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing, referring to your argument about the "copyright notice". Let's assume you read that right, and copyright notice is a fundamental condition for gaining copyright in the US on unpublished works that were published after 1978. Upon first publication (the internet site of Israel National Library) a proper copyright notice was given, both on the photo itself (a watermark which was intentionally cropped by the WP uploader)) and below its thumbnail representation in the site itself. They both are still there since. See also here. If a copyright notice is there (as is the situation here), the statement you quote is not applicable, as far as I understand it. The PD status of the original photo in Israel - which is undisputed - has nothing to do with it.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attribution can always be given (even under CC-By-3.0). Deror avi (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's stick to deleting this one first.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- CC BY 2.5 is an accepted license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's stick to deleting this one first.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Attribution can always be given (even under CC-By-3.0). Deror avi (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see now. Generally, if the photo is public domain, cropping out the watermark (or finding a version without one) is preferred. I still need to look over and see if it still really is copyrighted in the US or not since for the Israeli terms, publication just meant taking a photo from the negative. I believe the image would still be on Wikipedia's servers (either en.wp or Hebrew, if it accepts fair use) but from my view and from what I have seen other people do, if we completely went by the US rule fully, many of the images we have now won't stay on Wikipedia. It is one of the most ignored, and also one of the most fought over, rules for the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I gave a direct link above. It is located on the servers of Israel National Library. As you can see, since the copying of the file to Wikipedia, we have changed the position of the copyright watermark, so in the link you will see it in the center of the frame. When it was first downloaded the watermark (which was also smaller) was aligned to the lower part of the frame, and then intentionally cropped out by the Hebrew Wikipedia user who uploaded it to Wikipedia. This is also why the lower part of the photo is missing from the file that was uploaded. --Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have not been able to find this photo online outside of Wikimedia mirrors; is there a way that either Or or Deror could find this image on the website that it is claimed to be taken from? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not disputing the Israel part -- agree with you there. It's just the U.S. side of things. The URAA is not relevant since it didn't need to be restored, so the status in Israel on January 1, 1996 is not relevant here. Publishing in 2010 without a copyright notice has no consequence under U.S. law; lack of notice has not had any effect since March 1, 1989. If it was still copyrighted in the U.S. 2009 by virtue of being unpublished, then it's also copyrighted in 2011, regardless of intervening publication or notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I am seeing of the old Israeli code, publication for photographs doesn't matter for their copyright term. Plus, there is "Works Published Abroad After 1 January 1978" (so this would include 2010) and it reads "Published without copyright notice, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (but see special cases)." Also, according to http://www.bh.org.il/database-article.aspx?56163, he was in Israel past 1930 so Israel would be the point of origin for his photos (before then, Poland). But we have to see the original URL for the image so we can see what exactly does the National Picture Archive (or the agency that has this photograph) say. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It was apparently never published until 2010, so it never became PD in the United States, and is still copyrighted there. It did not need to be restored by the URAA. Look in the "Unpublished" section of the chart you link; that is the appropriate term to use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many hoping the current legal challenge to the URAA is successful (I doubt it, at least in any way which would change things here), but many images PD in their country of origin have been kept at least temporarily with using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, but that wouldn't apply in this case (since the URAA would not be involved, presuming this was indeed unpublished). And even then, if there were requests from copyright holders on those images, I'm sure we'd take them down too (and would have little choice with a DMCA action). However, if you wanted to license this CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (any version) that'd be great -- those are acceptable licenses. We just can't accept licenses which have "NC" or "ND" in them. Attribution is required in many countries anyways through moral rights (even for PD works); the 3.0 versions of the CC licenses more strongly protect that aspect than earlier ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please delete this one first. We currently do not intend to make this specific photo available under any of the CC-BY licences. BTW, about a year ago I have tried to upload two of my grandfather's photos to Commons, one was published in 1931 in Poland and the other was probably printed in Palestine in 1936. These were deleted by Deror Avi on the spot, claiming that I should provide him all kinds of legal proofs for holding the copyright on these photos (this was done simultaneously with claiming that this photo is in PD). I think a somewhat different atmosphere should be an essential condition for sharing my grandfather's photos on Commons. Maybe after we see a real action is done in this case we will find the atmosphere more suitable. Just for general knowledge - our family invested (and still invests) thousands of hard work hours to make this unique collection available through Israel National Library site, without any financial reward of any kind. We are pro-share, but cannot accept intentional violation of rights.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many hoping the current legal challenge to the URAA is successful (I doubt it, at least in any way which would change things here), but many images PD in their country of origin have been kept at least temporarily with using a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag, but that wouldn't apply in this case (since the URAA would not be involved, presuming this was indeed unpublished). And even then, if there were requests from copyright holders on those images, I'm sure we'd take them down too (and would have little choice with a DMCA action). However, if you wanted to license this CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (any version) that'd be great -- those are acceptable licenses. We just can't accept licenses which have "NC" or "ND" in them. Attribution is required in many countries anyways through moral rights (even for PD works); the 3.0 versions of the CC licenses more strongly protect that aspect than earlier ones. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note -- http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm was updated for 2012, and fixed the published-in-foreign-country section to show this would be 70pma in the U.S. if first published in 2010. Also, just realizing that this file was not re-nominated for deletion, but we are only editing the old archived DR, which means no admins would really be looking at this to delete it. It probably should be re-nominated so others look at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to re-nominate this file for deletion, but couldn't find the proper procedure to follow. I only got to an undeleting page. If you can help with the right place to do it, I will re-nominate it gladly.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Nominate for deletion" in the lefthand column under Toolbox when viewing the file page. It adds notices to the uploader's talk page as well as re-nominating it (which will add another section to this page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I took care of it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Nominate for deletion" in the lefthand column under Toolbox when viewing the file page. It adds notices to the uploader's talk page as well as re-nominating it (which will add another section to this page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to re-nominate this file for deletion, but couldn't find the proper procedure to follow. I only got to an undeleting page. If you can help with the right place to do it, I will re-nominate it gladly.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note -- http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm was updated for 2012, and fixed the published-in-foreign-country section to show this would be 70pma in the U.S. if first published in 2010. Also, just realizing that this file was not re-nominated for deletion, but we are only editing the old archived DR, which means no admins would really be looking at this to delete it. It probably should be re-nominated so others look at it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete But it's a shame that the holder of the copyright would rather destroy the image (putting watermark in the middle is destruction in my mind) than consider allowing others to use it. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 09:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Under http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (which was overhauled at the start of the year) it is 70 years PMA now for works that are published outside of the US. Under the rules of the Commons, it must be free in the COI and also the United States; in that case it is not free in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep According to 17 USC 104(c) and 17 USC 104A, if work is public domain in the "source country" on the "date of restoration", the copyright cannot be restored in the United States. And according to the Copyright Act 1911 (see {{PD-Israel}}), this image became public domain on 1 January of the 51st year after the creation of the photograph. This work has been public domain since January 1, 1984. So it was public domain in the "source country" on the "date of restoration" and the copyright cannot be restored in the United States. Takabeg (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Carl Lindberg's comment from 14:29, 10 December 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment According to the website of Beit Hatfutsof The Museum of the Jewish People, This unique collection was donated to the archive in 1985. Why the museum doesn't say We were centrusted the copyrights management of this unique collection. ? According to Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz Photo Collection, In the early 1930s Ze'ev published his photos in the Jewish press in Poland and the United States. I think we have to investigate very carefully and we must not easily accept claims of persons apart from of the real copyright holder. I think we must not delete images only with such ambiguous claims. As long as I understand, Or Aleksandrowicz, who distributes photographs of Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz in youtube for free, is not the copyright holder. Furthermore, there are many images like this. For example, the copyright of photographs taken by Yōsuke Yamahata (e.g. File:Nagasaki emergency relief.jpg, File:NagasakiSurvivors1945.png) had expired in Japan. But his son claims the duration of copyrights in the real world. Takabeg (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Beit Hetfutsot Museum received a handful of prints directly from my grandfather while he was still alive. At that time, nobody knew about the vast majority of the collection, which was left unknown until 2003, 11 years after my grandfather passed away. This vast collection, consisting of more than 15,000 negatives that were kept hidden in a small travelling bag (I can send you photos of it, if you don't believe), has nothing to do with the relatively small collection at Beit Hatfutsot. As I wrote earlier, my grandfather published tens of photos in some Jewish newspapers in Poland and USA during the 1930's, but, again, the number of these is pretty much limited. Here is a link to scans of these publications. The photo under discussion here - like the majority of the photos uploaded to the internet site of the National Library of Israel - has nothing to do with not with the small collection in Beit Hatfutsot nor with the published photos of the 1930's newspapers. I represent the copyright holders and directly involved in the management of the collection. What kind of "investigations" are needed? The major question here is the date of first publication. I claim this was in 2010, in the site of the National Library, and it is clear that the photo under discussion here was taken from there and NOT from any other source. As long as you cannot refute this claim (which will be very hard to do, believe me), I don't see the point of your "investigations".--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Carl Lindberg's comment from 14:29, 10 December 2011. --Túrelio (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Takabeg -- we would need to see that this photo was actually published in the 1930s, or was part of the 50 photos given to that other museum, for any of your information to have any effect. Many photographers of course had photos they took but never published at the time -- that is the claim here, and we would need direct evidence to contradict that. Can you find a copy of this photo elsewhere? Secondly, ownership of copyright typically passes to the heirs, and the person here would seem to be one of those. It's not simply a matter of trusting what they say (though the details do help quite a bit); to prove PD status in the U.S. we need to show that this photo was published (without a copyright notice) prior to 1989, and that is the only way we can keep it. I have not seen any reference to a source for this photo other than the one given above, which only shows publication in 2010 -- and also continued copyright ownership, where still valid, by the heirs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Cmt Does Israeli-PD still apply if the copyright holder wishes to retain their rights? I ask this beacuse I have come across the website of the Palestine Exploration Project who have loads of old photo which they still claim are copyrighted. Chesdovi (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you are in Israel, then Israeli law applies; if you are in the United States then U.S. law applies. It is rather common for protection to expire in one country but still exist in another. It sounds like Israeli law limits copyright of photos to 50 years from creation, so most likely they are PD inside Israel, unless somehow Israel considers a simple scan of a PD work to have enough originality for the scan to have its own copyright (doubt it, but I'm coming from a U.S. perspective on such things). In the U.S., if these photos were only published for the first time recently, they might still have copyright -- everything depends on when and where it was published, when it was created, and possibly when the author died. Each country will apply its own rules, in general. Palestine... eugh. That's a messy situation due to all the politics; they are a WIPO observer but are not technically a member of the Berne Convention or anything like that. I think they have made some moves towards having a new copyright law but not sure exactly what law would apply there now. You may find more information here or here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is subject to Israeli law, where it is in the public domain. The photo was not taken in the US and the relevant US legal clause that applies, as far as I am aware, is that if it's PD in Israel it's automatically PD in the US. On a side note, since someone mentioned them, Palestinian Authority laws are completely irrelevant to this case. —Ynhockey (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the above inserts from Carl Lindberg, he is very clear regarding the fact that a photo can be in PD in Israel while receiving full copyright protection in the US (or in other places). The Israeli law applies to Israel, not to the whole world.--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- The U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, so no, PD status in Israel does not mean they are PD in the U.S. Many countries, including Europe, does use that rule so the photo is likely PD in such places, but the U.S. is different. Furthermore, section 104A (the "restoration" stuff) of the law also does not apply, since its copyright was never lost in the first place and thus needed no restoration. (The Palestinian Authority is not relevant, correct, that was a tangent about some other photos.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment some photos by Lewis Carroll were deleted on questionable grounds, but this case seems clear: no prints had been made of these negatives until recently, the photo was not published. Free in Israel, still copyrighted in the US. Commons should move to a country that applies the rule of the shorter term (or it should just make it policy). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Per Carl. Not PD in the USA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I named the file incorrectly—„vom Unbekannten“ should read „von einem Unbekannten“. This file has no dependencies, and I intend to re-upload the file with the correct name. Daiukku (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested / dup / DR since January Alison ❤ 05:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems there is a problem with the permission. See https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=4473212&ArticleID=5332767&ZoomExpand=0#5332767 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_November_18#File:Nelson_Denis.jpg MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. The file description claims that this photo was created by the person in the photo, which obviously didn't happen. I was alerted to this deletion discussion by MGA73 on Wikipedia, where this same user account has tried repeatedly to upload photographs of himself while claiming (in discussions and in OTRS letters) that he "created" those photos. He has claimed in the past that he used a time-release device of some kind. That is not credible, and has been rejected by Wikipedia administrators. A similar photo was deleted in June on Wikipedia, re-created, deleted again, and over the past few hours was mistakenly restored and was deleted for a third time. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 18, a PUF in June, and today's undeletion request. While the photo here is different from the one on Wikipedia, otherwise the situation is identical. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I see from the file history that this photo was moved from Wikipedia by bot, and not directly uploaded to Commons. Had that not happened, it would have been among the batch of photos deleted in the June PUF linked above. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- KEEP: I am the subject of this photo, and also the owner of its copyright. I personally e-mailed copyright permission to OTRS for this photo. It was reviewed, and the decision was to Keep. This decision was made by User:Jamesofur who is an Administrator, a Checkuser and a Global Sysop. You can review this decision yourself: [7]
Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I know, you made the same conclusory "I own the copyright and have sent an OTRS letter to that effect" claim in the Wikipedia discussions, and it was rejected because you said you took the pictures, and it was not believed. Are you claiming, as you did on Wikipedia, that you took this photo with a remote shutter release? ScottyBerg (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Confusion of two DIFFERENT photos:
There is a confusion of two different photos here. The photo for which MGA73 said "it seems there is a problem with the permission" is File:Nelson_Denis.jpg, Ticket ID: 4473212 . That was a color photo, which was deleted one month ago (12/2/11) pursuant to a PUF discussion.
The photo under review here is a different photo. It is a black & white photo, taken in a different location, at a different time, with different clothes. It also has a different file name: File:Denis_Photo-1.jpg , and a different Ticket ID: 5649902. The editor ScottyBerg acknowledged this, stating that "the photo here is different from the one in Wikipedia" (see his comment above). He then stated that "the situation is identical."
But it is NOT identical.
THIS photo was reviewed, the OTRS permission was confirmed, and the decision was to KEEP. This decision was made by User:Jamesofur who is an Administrator, a member of the Wikimedia OTRS Team, a Checkuser and a Global Sysop. You can review this decision yourself: [8]
Please, do not confuse two different photos here. The evidence is right in front of you. [9] File:Denis_Photo-1.jpg has a valid permission in place. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Under "Author" on the photo description page it says "photo by Nelson Denis." You are the subject of the photo. It is a very good quality photo. How did you manage that? Do you have very long arms? ScottyBerg (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously Nelson Dennis did not take this picture, and has no reasonable basis for saying that he owns the rights. And no, writing a letter to OTRS saying "I own the rights" won't do. There is no need to write private letters. The subject of the photo - a studio-quality picture, not a casual snapshot - the person who allegedly took the photo, and the editor uploading the photo are all the same person. There is no need to go off-wiki on this. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - The pro's and con's in the discussion are interesting, but what hasn't been taken into consideration is the fact that when a photo is involved a transfer of copyright can be a result of a mutual agreement between both parties, be it verbally, a hand shake, a node of the head and so on. Millions of people around the world have their pictures taken by others and by a mutual understanding based on good-faith accept the fact that the copyrights were transferred to the subject of the image. What I'm talking about is your common photo, not one owned by the media. I mean if this were not the case, millions of people could not show off the hundreds of million pictures which are currently in individual photo albums or displayed on the walls of millions of households. As I stated before, if the copyrights of the photo in question was transferred by mutual agreement and the uploader agrees that it was so, then I see no reason for it to be deleted. AntonioMartin (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- He says he took the picture himself. Look at the photo description page. He obviously didn't. If he changes his story now, and says that he didn't create this image, that the picture was taken by someone else and the copyright was "transferred," it is not going to be any more credible. I disagree that a handshake is sufficient, as this is obviously a formal photo, not a snapshot. We've debated this same issue several times on Wikipedia, far more than on Commons. I think it's fairly settled by now that this editor's representations concerning photos of himself are not credible. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia account of ScottyBerg has just been identified as a sockpuppet account, and was blocked indefinitely. Please see for yourself: [10] This is the SAME ScottyBerg that has been appearing in this discussion. Accordingly, all of his comments (and his "vote") should be disregarded. It is SCOTTYBERG that is not credible. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Note Before any action on this delention request be taken seriously, we need an explation from the nominator as to why his account was blocked: [11] and is accussed of being a "sockpuppet" of User: Mantaamoreland, : [12]. Otherwise, this nomination should be removed. AntonioMartin (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- uhm the nominator is MGA73 not ScottyBerg 94.208.67.65 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- My block is under review and I'm hopeful of it being overturned. As the IP pointed out, I did not commence this nomination. I am not blocked here on Commons, anyway. Nelsondenis, why don't you address my question rather than poisoning the well? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no "question" to answer since:
- This photo was nominated by mistake (as already discussed above)
- The photo was already reviewed, the OTRS permission was confirmed, and the decision was to KEEP. This decision was made by User:Jamesofur who is an Administrator, a member of the Wikimedia OTRS Team, a Checkuser and a Global Sysop. You can review this decision yourself: [13] (all of this was also discussed above)
- The only complaining editor in this discussion, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet in Wikipedia.
- Again, this nomination was brought by another editor, not me. You were blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet yourself, so it's a little disingenuous for you to keep bringing that up. The Wikipedia arbitration committee is currently reviewing my block, but in any event it has no relevancy whatever to the fact that I am not blocked here. What is relevant is that you did not take this photo, as you do not deny. That is obvious from the photo itself. That is why the photo should be deleted, because you have no legitimate claim to the rights to the photo. It doesn't matter that it went to the OTRS team etc. The purpose of this file deletion application is to review whether you have the rights to the photo, and it's plain from your answers that you don't. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Mr. ScottyBerg, you have a habit of willfully mis-construing the statements of other editors and administrators. However I will maintain my civility, I will not argue with you. If you have a problem with this photo which was nominated here by mistake, but is now being hounded by you, then you should take it up with User:Jamesofur ( Administrator, member of the Wikimedia OTRS Team, Checkuser, and Global Sysop) and User:Zscout370 (Wikimedia Commons Administrator), the Administrators who reviewed it and decided to KEEP. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, it was not nominated by "mistake," and the only incivility is coming from you. The purpose of this nomination is clear: "there seems to be a problem with the permission." It says that at the top, along with a link to the Wikipedia discussion concerning a different photo in which you also claimed that you took a picture but did not. You don't have to repetitively point out that an OTRS letter was sent and that an administrator agreed to it. That is completely beside the point. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if they made a mistake, and they plainly did. You did not take the picture. You are in the photograph. Only the person who took the picture can make a claim to own the rights, since this is not a casual family snapshot. You seem to be willing to discuss everything under the sun but that. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Closing admin: Feel free to disregard my objections. I'm no longer active on Commons. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please KEEP the photo and CLOSE this discussion.
I sent the copyright permission for this photo to OTRS, long before the photo was nominated for deletion. The copyright permission was reviewed, verified, and an OTRS ticket was issued.
This photo should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place. I believe this nomination was a good-faith error.
In addition, the only editor who voiced any complaint:
- 1) has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet in Wikipedia
- 2) is no longer active in Wikimedia Commons
- 3) stated Closing admin: Feel free to disregard my objections. I'm no longer active on Commons. (see discussion above)
Please close this discussion (which is now 6 weeks old) and acknowledge the OTRS permission, and the OTRS ticket which is in place. Thank you.
Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I've been going through Denis' English Wikipedia article and have found a significant amount of incorrect source use, if not outright fabrication of information with sources as a false cover. (Upon inspection of a source for a claim, one finds that the source contains no such evidence for the claim. Some sources didn't even mention Denis)
- After doing that, i've now begun to look closer at the images in the article and have been concerned greatly about those as well. The photo in question here is clearly a professional photo, much like this one (which has been deleted twice before on English Wikipedia for lack of verified copyright). Nelsondenis' claims in the past for this image that he used a remote shutter release are practically impossible, there's no way for him to have hit the button and gotten perfectly in place, not an inch out of order, for this photo. Whether professional or amateur, it's a tricky subject to discuss whether a "hand over the picture hands over the copyright" claim holds water. For a professional picture, I think the answer would be clearly no, the photographer holds the copyright. For amateur...it's a gray area, but i'd rather stay on the safe side of no, especially in regards to an image that has so many incongruities like this one. As for professionally taken, that's something that is clearly true of this image, so i'll need to look into that one as well.
- And this one is very very clearly a photo taken by the press (or a bystander) at a press conference. There's no way he holds the copyright for it.
- All in all, this seems extremely fishy. The fact that there were copyright verification issues in the past with other images uploaded (which has since been reuploaded after deletion) by Nelsondenis gives a large question to this one and all the others he has uploaded. And I just cannot see this as an image that he holds the copyright for under these circumstances. Silverseren5 (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment As OTRS member I've looked into this case which was unknown to me before. I want to summarize some of the points:
- The identity of the uploader with Nelson Denis was verified (through phone calls).
- In the initial series of emails, the uploader claimed that the photographs were made by a professional photographer who transfered the copyright. The photographer was initially not named, but when one of the OTRS members asked for the name, an email was received from someone claiming to be the photographer and confirming the transfer of copyright. The identity of the photographer was never verified.
- To me some confusion arises through a more recent email of 24 February 2012 to OTRS by the uploader who stated in ticket:2012022410002935 that he took this photo himself using a remote shutter release. In a message sent by the uploader two years earlier (24 February 2010) he had stated for the same photograph that a paid photographer took it (see ticket:2010021210043515).
These conflicting statements do not inspire trust on my side. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note from the Copyright Holder
-
- Perhaps this will help to re-focus this discussion:
- I am the the copyright holder of this photo that was nominated, and I sent OTRS a detailed permission for it.
- The permission was reviewed and approved by OTRS. They issued a ticket for it.
- Back in 2010, User:Jamesofur called me and spoke personally with me, about this photo. User:Jamesofur is an Administrator, a member of the Wikimedia OTRS Team, a Checkuser and a Global Sysop. Pursuant to this discussion, User:Jamesofur confirmed the permission and confirmed me, as the owner and holder of the copyright. The decision of User:Jamesofur and the OTRS team was to KEEP. To keep this very photo, which we are now discussing. The OTRS team included User:Jamesofur and a Wikimedia Commons Administrator named User:Zscout370. I provided the link to their decision on this page (see above, on January 4, 2012; and January 17, 2012), and I'll do it again: [14]
- This photo was apparently nominated in error. There was a confusion between two different photo files, as I also noted in the above discussion, and noted it repeatedly (see above: January 4, January 17, February 14).
- One "delete" vote came from an editor who is now blocked indefinitely in Wikipedia, is no longer active in Commons, and withdrew himself from this discussion on January 31, 2012, stating: "Closing admin: Feel free to disregard my objections. I'm no longer active on Commons" (see above, January 31). That leaves us with two "Keep" votes, one "Delete," and a prior decision by OTRS Administrators to KEEP this photo.
- The comments from other editors above, are about other photos, not this one. The merits of this photo continue to be as strong, clear, and unchanged, as the day on which User:Jamesofur and User:Zscout370 decided to KEEP this photo. The status of this photo remains unchanged, and no new facts have been presented here to refute that status.
- As the copyright holder, I placed this photo (and other photos of mine) in my personal Flickr account, which can be viewed at [15]
- As an editor in good faith (with over 4,500 non-controversial edits in Wikipedia) I sent the copyright permission to OTRS. That permission is very detailed, it was reviewed by OTRS, and the OTRS ticket was issued. It has already been reviewed, and the decision was to KEEP.
In view of all this, and in view of this questionable nomination, I ask the closing administrator to treat this photo fairly. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per MGA73, AFB, etc. all respected editors. Too many questions and too many changes of story -- no response to many times repeated question of how this photograph was taken. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Per the nomination from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png --Daris Bayliss (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
COM:DW: This file was tagged by Daris Bayliss as copyvio because: Non-free 3D art RE rillke questions? 22:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
US Air Force insignia from uniforminsignia, copyvio
[edit]For reason, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files from uniforminsignia, copyvio. These files were taken from http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2142 . --Officer781 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Files of User:꿈을찾는일기장
[edit]- File:Dwinguler.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dwinguler00.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dwinguler01.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dwinguler02.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dwinguler03.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Dwinguler002.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Promotional images. out of project scope. Some files arewere used on ko:뒹굴러 놀이방매트. --– Kwj2772 (msg) 09:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --관인생략 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete PR. --Idh0854 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --베이징 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Billygrimley (talk · contribs)
[edit]A collection of files most likely grabbed from the web, with insufficient descriptions and image names, bogus 2011 dates and bogus claims of "own work". They could be PD-old or similar, but we'd need more information to establish that.
Rosenzweig τ 21:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Copyright violations
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
CoA files from speedy-deletion. Reason was: Not 70 years PMA, see below
RE rillke questions? 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Changing from {{copyvio|Tous droits réservés - Arnaud BUNEL - 1997-2011}} because I don't agree. They all seem to be from before 1500 so the copyright would have expired. Arnaud Bunel's contribution is probably below the threshold of originality.
Stefan4 (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I do not agree that these files are copyright violations. They are logos of the United States and look sufficiently simple, cf. examples at COM:TOO#United States. However, some can probably be deleted as duplicates.
Stefan4 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Dupes deleted by User:Sreejithk2000. FASTILY (TALK) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These were originally speedy-nommed because the Flickr license is NC. These are by a NASA employee, so the question is whether or not this negates or trumps the NC on Flickr.
INeverCry 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I uploaded these files on the basis that work by NASA is normally in the public domain and allowed here on Wikimedia. There is nothing to suggest that astronaut Don Pettit shot these pictures for private reasons using his own personal camera. If he intended them to be private holiday snaps he could have created a personal website and posted them there with copyright restrictions. In fact, I doubt his terms of employment at NASA would allow him to make pictures private that were taken from a NASA space station using NASA camera equipment. The pictures were posted at a NASA controlled website, not at Pettit's own website. They have all been assigned official NASA photo identifications (e.g. JSC2012-E-051505, JSC2012-E-051506, and JSC2012-E-051507) and some have been posted at NASA's main website – NASA.gov – where the usual freedom of use applies (picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA's main website. Second picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA. Third picture at NASA's Flickr account; same picture at NASA). I assume the employee at NASA who created the NASA Flickr account may not have known that he was setting a licence parameter that restricted image usage more than at NASA's main website. If the same pictures at NASA.gov cannot be used from NASA's Flickr account, that is inconsistent and makes no sense. O'Dea (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Kept: per consensus to kept. Érico Wouters msg 02:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Speedy nommed as copyvios by User:Smial, but may be covered by FoP. Discussion seems like a better idea than speedy deletion.
INeverCry 19:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted the interior kept exterior as FOP. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Original speedy rationale: Unfortunately, this artwork by Miquel Barceló is under copyright--User:LPLT (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
INeverCry 17:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
My pictures are the 4 first ones listed above. I would however demand that the same deletion rules apply to the following files, which don't even mention the artist's name. The US Mission should not be above rules that apply to others.
Thank you for your patience and your understanding --BiiJii (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
--BiiJii (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio logos by User:Ostiamare. Most of these look too simple to be copyrighted, but I'd like more opinions.
INeverCry 01:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Previously tagged as Copyvio by Ellin Beltz: © 2008–2015 Astronomical Institute of the Charles University, Josef Ďurech, Vojtěch Sidorin
Alan (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Kept: CC BY 4.0. Alan (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by PlanespotterA320 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Cropping out artistic parts of postal covers and stamps is strictly prohibited by PD-RU-exempt (read the footnotes about cropping). These artistic renderings by themselves are protected by copyright until expiration, and none are old enough to have expired copyright yet. Until such time, the artists of these works, like Pyotr Bendel and Anatoly Kalashnikov, retain the rights to these works.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These three stamps were sent to copyvio, but I think they need to be discussed, because the argument presented is a little bit above the quick decision needed for CopyVio.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Minoraxtalk 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files were initially tagged by Matthias Winkelmann as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: F5}}{{SD|reason=No information is given regarding consent, and the tone of the description and the inclusion of "ex-girlfriend" in the filename raise the possibility of this being intentional harassment. Plus, it's pornographic and low-quality. User has about 80+ similar photos. The uploader (@Ulflarsen: ) asserts the following: "I put this picture up for deletion, to stop a speedy deletion. The picture is posted with the full consent of my ex-girlfriend, she know of it and is still doing amateur pornograpy with me now and then. If this picture (and my 90+ similar pictures) shall be deleted, then there are some tens of thousands of others that also should be removed, and Wikimedians would have to ask what other content that may be problematic, perhaps pictures of war?“
FredWalsh (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary issue of this DR seems to be consent of the other partners, rather than scope or other topical reasons. I have kept those files for which OTRS consent has been received, and deleted one for which it cannot be obtained. If there has legitmate scope or other topical concerns, they can be addressed in a separate DR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These files was initially tagged by Yinweiaiqing as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: videos of performances captured by audience. missing permission from performers. They've sat in CAT:COPYVIO for a few days; converting to DR.
AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. --Minoraxtalk 04:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Appear to be from 1910s/1020s-era, likely a PD original (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ghidul Constantei si Tekirghiol.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:CityStudyCasinoArchive.jpg for evience of this timeframe and porential original being PD).
DMacks (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. While the text of the name list is not eligible for copyright, the photograph of the list probably is (barely). --Rosenzweig τ 07:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Files in Category:Copyright violations[edit]Converting these to DR since they've sat in the copyvio queue for a while. Gleb Leo tagged these as copyvio as apparently containing work by author not covered under the existing license template.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination, no objection nor counterargument presented. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploads by User:Myrrine[edit]Source site: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." According to the uploader, he/she has the permission to upload the files under the provided license. User_talk:Myrrine#Non-commercial_use_is_not_allowed_on_Commons. --Polarlys (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Polarlys (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 18:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC) |
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Denis_Photo-1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]Speedy tagged by IP user. Wait: "Such booking photographs may be broadcast, published, and/or posted to a website in the normal course of business." is arguably a free license (although it does not expressly permit derivative works), and I will reach out to the named contact for clarification and to see if consent can be sent to COM:VRT.
- File:Rudolph Giuliani booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Scott Hall booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:David Shafer booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:John Eastman booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Sidney Powell booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Mark Meadows booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Ray Smith booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Kenneth Chesebro booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Jenna Ellis booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Cathleen Latham booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
- File:Floyd Harrison booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png
—Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that File:Donald Trump booking photo Fulton County Georgia.png should be restored if VRT permission is granted. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- These should be deleted, it doesn't seem like I'm making progress with the contact person, unfortunately. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Mug Shot.webp. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Files in Category:Copyright violations
[edit]No permission and no evidence of a free license.
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4784-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231357-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID5011-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231466-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231077-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231370-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID11744-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231354-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID4819-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID9495-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231369-av.jpg
- File:AT-KHMW-MK-ID231102-av.jpg
Yann (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
WMF trademark material. Authorship as "own work" is wrong, not labelled as WMF copyright, no indication of permssion, also appears to breach Trademark_Policy#Related_and_Derivative_Works_of_the_Wikimedia_Content Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please guide on how to change details. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't feel qualified to do so. I could advise on how to fix the first issues raised, but for the last issue listed here, I'm simply not sure if this image can ever be based on the jigsaw globe. I hope that other Commons users, with more knowledge of WMF-derived images, can explain. Fortunately this is Commons, not Wikipedia, and so deletion discussions are rather more rational. Nor will the image be deleted any time soon, without a real conclusion having been reached. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The recommended approach, per the visual identity guidelines, is to use the affiliative mark for purposes like this. However, if tagged as copyrighted by Wikimedia, there's no need to urgently delete this file -- we can give Abhi time to sort it out.--Eloquence (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Will sort out issue asap. Please give some time! Already in touch with WMF! AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Added {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} tag. Sreejith K (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Futbolero tagged it for speedy-deletion. Does it exceed COM:TOO? RE rillke questions? 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar images
- File:Escudo Deportivo Cruz Azul.png
- File:Cruz Azul logo.svg
- File:Cruz azul logo.png
- Keep Circles, stars, words, squares and a cross, less original than this. Futbolero had no reason for ask a speedy deletion, many logos we have here are copyrighted by their authors, but there's a difference between claim copyright and have a copyright. Tbhotch™ 04:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem if the PNG version is deleted as we have an svg version. Tbhotch™ 04:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the SVG should be made to look more like the PNG before it goes, but the design is too simple. Fry1989 eh? 00:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 2012©Copyright Cruz Azul Futbol Club A.C. Derechos Reservados. --Borowskki (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- So? Copyright 2012 Sony Corporation. Claiming copyrights does not give you copyrights by default. Nobody in the world give copyrights to ideas. Tbhotch™ 22:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Info I deleted File:Cruz Azul logo.svg and File:Cruz azul logo.png because they had a {{Speedy}} tag on it for copyvio. This image looks exactly similar. If we decide to keep this image, then these logos can be undeleted. Thanks to User:Tbhotch for the note on my talk page. --Sreejith K (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I see the Cruz Azul logo not original enough to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo ... does not meet COM:TOO 99of9 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
